shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Thu Mar 2 15:20:49 UTC 2006

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

 > >Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how  
 > >to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes...  I'm not sure we'll be there for a  
 > >few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs  
 > >to figure out what the Internet is going to look like at that point.
 > 
 > It won't look good. ISPs will have to buy much more expensive  
 > routers. At some point, people will start to filter out routes that  
 > they feel they can live without and universal reachability will be a  
 > thing of the past.

But don't we filter out routes we feel we can live without *right now*
without the world ending?

I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to 
universal reachability.

What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than 
a /18"?

  - mark

-- 
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd                 Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223